On the SGA Presidential Debate: what about the rest of us?

I am going to preface the following analysis by stating that I am focusing on one specific question that I felt wasn’t answered. If you’d like to read a complete analysis, simply turn back to the front page for our objective news coverage of the debate, or watch it yourself on www.thestute.com.

The SGA is a polarizing organization on campus, to say the least. A lot of the student body’s division over the SGA stems from misunderstanding and often straight-up misinformation. This past Wednesday night at 9 p.m., the presidential tickets in Matthew Hunt and Jessica Smith, and Vincent Raimondi and Charles Jacob Shotmeyer gathered to field, discuss, and ultimately debate questions asked by the student body. Where did their discussion falter?

In essence, both candidates have their heads on straight, earnestly want to better this university, and are primarily focused on student-centricity, viewing the term not as a buzzword, but as a mission statement to define their potential terms as SGA President.

Raimondi’s perspective on student-centricity puts students first by any means necessary, but doesn’t completely acknowledge the limited framework that the SGA must work within. In other words, Raimondi is akin to a “people’s champion,” willing to put his neck out for the student body, but seemingly neglecting to acknowledge the less savory aspects of SGA and administration relations, such as not giving students everything they want and taking time to ensure initiatives are funneled through the proper administrative channels before promising x.

Hunt’s perspective on student-centricity is more conservative than Raimondi’s. As the current SGA President, Hunt has had an entire term to acclimate himself to being at the helm of the SGA, make mistakes, and hopefully learn from them. Hunt’s words don’t have as much impact as Raimondi’s, especially to a first- or even second-year student. However, as a senior on his way out, I’ve been through the administrative ringer and understand that—even as an idealist in most cases—there is more to revitalizing Stevens at a student-level than focusing on festivals.

Despite some differences in initiatives, there was one area where neither one of the candidates convinced me: student outreach. Focusing on “student-centricity” and looking to give students a voice is one thing, but reaching the entire student body is a more difficult and infinitely more important task. Those who came to the SGA Presidential Debate are already interested. What about those who left after 15 minutes, or who weren’t there? What about the majority of students, who won’t read The Stute‘s coverage, watch SITTV’s debate recording, or even vote?

I don’t blame students for being disinterested in the SGA. The SGA, like the Honor Board and The Stute, have suffered from a historically poor reputation, and have what varies between hills and mountains to climb before returning to their former standing within the student body. However, the SGA needs to start somewhere, and begin to figure out a way to reach out to students who won’t take the proactive step (and quite frankly shouldn’t have to) to become more informed. I suppose the SGA’s new district system is a potential solution to this core problem, but given that some students have yet to hear from their SGA district heads, and the fact that I received a meager email from mine, I’m going to score that idea, in its current iteration, a failure.

What’s my suggestion? I don’t have anything concrete, and I don’t envy Matt or Vinny’s potential positions as SGA President; but trying to entice the enticed is a redundant and impeding step in both tickets’ plans for change. I don’t care about Boken or the connections that the SGA has with President Farvardin, but I do care about the students who are not present, and thus not represented, at debates—the ones who don’t feel like they have a say in their experience at Stevens, even if the SGA says they do.

We can’t have a student government when the students who feel represented—the same ones attending the SGA Presidential Debate—consist of recurring student leaders, SGA senators, and SITTV. I don’t fault the SGA for the position they’re in, because what’s done is done. Mistakes were made in the past, and it’s on the current leaders to deal with moving forward into the future. I just hope whoever is elected as SGA President and Vice President will take a huge leap backwards and address the SGA’s perception among the student body before they move forward with anything. You can’t have student centricity when the majority students don’t seem to care, or even vote.